Comments for

Comment on Jeffrey Armstrong: HISTORY, SUSTAINABILITY and the VEDAS by Sandiji

Sandiji — Tue, 15 May 2012 03:23:34 +0000

Hi Pete –Did Tony ever get Jeffrey’s email –not sure we heard from him.
Let him know –thanks Sandi

Comment on SAM COOKE, ALI and MALCOLM X: Don’t Know Much About History by sam northway

sam northway — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 13:54:53 +0000

sam cooke, legend of all myths. sam made a change possible in sanitiy and despire and didnt only require a break down he made people feel his pain through the beautiful soul he sang.

Comment on The Contradiction that is Ayn Rand—or is Ayn Rand a fundamental idiot? by FeRD

FeRD — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 09:39:53 +0000

Anyway, I just went on-line for literally ten seconds, and found this, from her former lover, Nathaniel Brandon, called The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand. It may be of no interest to you, or really interesting.

…Or both! ;-)

Comment on LUKE, USE THE FORCE by Philip mccormack

Philip mccormack — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 05:23:59 +0000

And of course, some arms-wanting country would pay you tens of millions. Is that the taxpayers of the US?
I wonder what excuse will be used to permit its use, and if it turns on their own troops they can use the prosthetics taken from the spare-part shop of the robots.
How about making a loving robot to help humanity. The world is insane lead by psychopathic politicians and scientists. Love to everyone. Philip

Comment on The Contradiction that is Ayn Rand—or is Ayn Rand a fundamental idiot? by mike

mike — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 16:08:50 +0000

I thinks she is merely claiming that there are no valid contradictory objective arguments. In the grand scheme of things a subjective argument is as irrelevant as my favorite flavor of ice cream. Two people seeing an object differently doesn’t change it’s nature.

My biggest complaint from what I read of her was that her attempted application of objective standards to aesthetics was quite silly. She was rife with contradictions, but I think she definitely was onto something. She just needed to check some of her premises…

Comment on DR. JAMES McCORMACK: TAKING PHARMACEUTICAL DRUGS INTELLIGENTLY by Karen

Karen — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 14:14:23 +0000

Please thank your brother for this breath of fresh air! Such a great reality check.

I work with the raw data from clinical trials all the time, and the whole numbers that make it to the public are often based on actual differences taken to the thousands point.

I wish more folks would learn to trust what their body tells them, and then act on what they hear.

And I wish every clinical trial had both a PBO and an exercise arm. If we all started moving a little more, so many “chronic” conditions might disappear.

Love to you and those you love.

Comment on AN OPEN LETTER TO RICHARD DAWKINS: MAN-MADE CLIMATE CHANGE or is SCIENCE SUBJECTIVE? by Melanie

Melanie — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:36:37 +0000

Terry you are right, but it is not distorted logic. Water is – while not necessarily a pollutant – a major greenhouse gas. Why? It holds substantial amounts of long wave radiation emitted by the Earth in our atmosphere, greatly increasing the warming effect. Furthermore, a differentiation must be made between global warming and climate change. Both are occurring. With present and projected levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, the global temperature will increase (global warming), but Earth will be affected in different ways in different areas; Areas that are warm will get warmer, dry areas will become drier, areas that receive much precipitation will have an increase in precipitation. But water is an indirect player in the GHG game. As the Earth warms with increased CO2 emissions, more water is absorbed into the atmosphere. As more water is absorbed more heat is held in the atmosphere, which accentuates the warming. It is a positive feedback loop.

Comment on Why Orwell Matters by Pete McCormack

Pete McCormack — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 03:20:00 +0000

Lovely Andrea,

What could almost be so cynical and paranoid that the Ottawa Boys are spending all the dough on The War of 1812 to get us thinking war-like things as they ramp up towards the Iranian Crisis. As for the War on Drugs, the Boss just can’t find ANY mental nuance on the subject, and what he does find is profoundly hypocritical, utterly unpragmatic (unless his agenda is pro-trafficking and pro-violent fall out and the further decimation of marginalized people) and staggeringly expensive, and complete out of step even with science.

You rock,

Pete

Comment on LIBERTARIANS ON SPORT (oh, and Noam Chomsky on sport, too) by Sam Smitter

Sam Smitter — Sun, 11 Mar 2012 20:36:32 +0000

@ Ryan
Learn more about the Brookings Institute and other “Think Tanks” and Foundations and you will understand why they wanted you to be interested in sports.

Also, I don’t remember the “Theatre” receiving anything 1/100 as intense as the “Go Team” indoctrination signals being pumped into us over Football.

Comment on AN OPEN LETTER TO RICHARD DAWKINS: MAN-MADE CLIMATE CHANGE or is SCIENCE SUBJECTIVE? by Terry Coupland

Terry Coupland — Sun, 11 Mar 2012 06:20:43 +0000

Some food for thought:

All life is carbon based. Both carbon dioxide and water are required for
photosynthesis. Without carbon dioxide or water, life, as we know it, would
not exist.

Carbon dioxide contributes 4 to 8% of the Earth’s greenhouse effect, water
vapour 70% and water droplets in clouds 20%.

When fossil fuels are burned, energy, carbon dioxide and water are produced in the formula:

HYDROCARBON + OXYGEN = ENERGY + CARBON DIOXIDE + WATER

The US Environmental Protection Agency has declared that carbon dioxide is a
pollutant. Julia Gillard, PM of Australia (for now), used the same terminology when she announced her ill-conceived carbon tax. Using the same distorted logic, water is also a pollutant.